1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Backports policy proposal
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Backports%20policy%20proposal&In-Reply-To=%3C1309254414.31611.21.camel%40akroma.ephaone.org%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="006074.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="006141.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] Backports policy proposal</H1>
<B>Michael Scherer</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Backports%20policy%20proposal&In-Reply-To=%3C1309254414.31611.21.camel%40akroma.ephaone.org%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Backports policy proposal">misc at zarb.org
</A><BR>
<I>Tue Jun 28 11:46:53 CEST 2011</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="006074.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy proposal
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="006141.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy proposal
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#6087">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#6087">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#6087">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#6087">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>Le lundi 27 juin 2011 à 21:42 -0400, andre999 a écrit :
><i> Michael Scherer a écrit :
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > Le vendredi 24 juin 2011 à 16:20 -0400, andre999 a écrit :
</I>><i> >> Michael Scherer a écrit :
</I>><i>
</I>><i> [...]
</I>><i>
</I>><i> >>> - cannot be backported if the package was just created and is thus basically untested in cauldron
</I>><i> >>
</I>><i> >> What about corner cases where a potential backport is incompatible with changes introduced in
</I>><i> >> cauldron ? Should we leave such packages to third parties ? (I would tend to say yes.)
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > Give a more precise example.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Suppose leaf package fooa depends on foob. foob is part of the current release.
</I>><i> Cauldron replaces foob with fooc. fooa is incompatible with fooc.
</I>
Then why do we replace foob by it in the first place if this break
fooa ?
><i> fooa is requested by some users, and future versions of fooa are intended to be
</I>><i> compatible with fooc.
</I>><i> In this case, even though it wouldn't be testable in cauldron, it could be tested in
</I>><i> backports-testing, and I think it could be a good idea to allow it.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Even if fooc compatibility wouldn't be available for the next Mageia release, a user
</I>><i> could avoid updating for a release in order to keep using fooa.
</I>><i> However, if there were no intention to make fooa compatible with fooc, maybe it should
</I>><i> be denied.
</I>
The example is bogus. If we have fooa in the distro and we upload fooc
that break it, then we have to fix the breakage as a priority. Usually,
that would be having foob and fooc as parallel installablable.
Anyway, the question is "how often does it" happens ? Because "it may
happen" is not a justification" if in practice, it never happen. And not
having a backport is not the end of the world so unless the problem is
quite frequent ( and so far, this one is far from being frequent ,
especially since it is based on a wrong supposition in the first part ),
I do not think this would be blocking.
><i> >> I like the idea of tagging backports in the package name, as well as in the package database.
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > We cannot tag in the packages database. Yum do it with a separate sqlite
</I>><i> > file, afaik.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> I would like to see the source repository info available for every installed package.
</I>><i> Maybe even stored somewhere in the .rpm file, also.
</I>><i> Is concerns for upstream compatibility for rpm or urpm* the a reason why we can't add
</I>><i> new fields to the packages database ?
</I>><i> (Although a parallel sqlite file would work.)
</I>
Compatibility would be indeed a concern. But if we move packages between
repository without rebuilding for QA reasons, this would also be
meaningless.
--
Michael Scherer
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="006074.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy proposal
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="006141.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy proposal
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#6087">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#6087">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#6087">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#6087">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<hr>
<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">More information about the Mageia-dev
mailing list</a><br>
</body></html>
|
